Well... I AM an expert in photography and this guy's analysis is stupid. You can see from the feet position of Obama and the girl that Obama is standing exactly beside the ass in question because they are on steps.

94 comments:

You have to love these dopey scientific analyses of this incident. I am sure its true that Obama looks at a lot of nice women and their sexual parts as all men do. Even if he wasn't looking at her ass in the current picture, he was probably looking at it moments before or moments after. BUt so what. It's not proof that Obama is cheating on his wife or something.

This is all a distraction from the real tragedy of Obama. The real tragedy of Obama is that he is totally incompetent. His economic plan is a total disaster. The stimulus package has failed. He is proposing massive amounts of debt for nothing in return. His attempt to control the American economy through cap and trade and natioanl health-care is a disaster. His foreign policy is a disaster - the fact that he took the side of Hugo Chavez over the rule of law in Hondurus is a total stain on what America stands for.

I see a wonderful teachable moment here. The Professor has opened up the debate to a complete lesson in fake photos. That is a subject that we should not remain ignorant about. It is the cutting edge of propaganda in the digital ocean we are swimming in today. The wrong interpretation of this moment by our lying eyes will never be erased. That is a similar mind control event to Algore's fantasy movie which was shown by Adults to children as a Scientific documentary. Now all the bad guys need to do is repeat the majic words about dying species and rising oceans and all money will be surrendered to a Global Authority by a 51% vote.

Amazing that someone can write 1000 words on depth of field without mentioning F-stops and their effect.

In good light a professional photographer is probably shooting at F2.8 (wide open) which gives a very limited depth of field. The pixelation he talks about is caused by reducing the image size from 10 million pixels or more to something that a newspaper of magazine would want to print or post.

While I might be willing to accept his ignorance to the ways of the camera, he really should know how a staircase works. Obama is on a step and Chiquita is headed from that same step to the next, she is obviously behind him.

Ha Ha Ha - ?Ann, I don't know how you can effectively make fun of people making fun of you this time. Your critics (like at http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/a-stubbornness-in-the-face-of-fact-that-is-unbecoming-of-an-academic/#more-10045 - I put up whole URL for effect.) That post was overly long and indulgent on making the point, but the simple criticism of your take on Obama, merely from a still photo, is correct.

(Yeah, it sounds like a "dopey scientific analysis," but your take was a dopey, unscientific shot from the hip. Which is worse, and it's as bad as Sloanasurus' further drivel that Obama has "failed" after only a few months - long before we can know what can be done rightly about the economic crisis that was long in the making, and in the absence of any rational "counterfactual conditional" analysis such as, how it would have turned out had we done nothing or something else, etc. And no, Zelaya was not removed according to their legal principles - he may have been doing whatever, but a military coup is not going through the proper channels to remove him, even in Honduras AFAICT. That's why most of the civilized world, but not e.g. most Republicans, are against the coup.)

Brad DeLong makes a better and pithier criticism, in his fetching style:If you take a picture of the moon and claim that the resulting photograph is proof that the moon’s a stationary object and then someone shows you a video of it moving across the night sky, you cannot claim that your interpretation of the event depicted in the photograph is still valid.

He's right. You're just propping up Drudge-like careless jumping to conclusions (about the sort of people he would like to weaken) because of this or that little thing, that you get an intuition about. Then you pretend to be a professional photo analyst or whatever - well if you are, LMK but that still doesn't excuse failing to correct.

And no, Zelaya was not removed according to their legal principles - he may have been doing whatever, but a military coup is not going through the proper channels to remove him, even in Honduras AFAICT.

Wow, that's some brilliant analysis there...Zelaya was "doing whatever" but shouldn't have been removed, as far as you can tell.

Funny how everyone's an expert on Honduran constitutional theory these days.

Obama has "failed" after only a few months - long before we can know what can be done rightly about the economic crisis that was long in the making, and in the absence of any rational "counterfactual conditional" analysis such as, how it would have turned out had we done nothing or something else,

Obama's economic strategy with the recession and to stem the tide of unemployment was an enormous stimulus package. This has failed. The economy will bounce back eventually, but Obama's strategy did nothing to help it along.

Obama does nothing but hinder economic growth. He is against the most efficent production methods. He is proposing massive budget deficits. He proposes anti-trade methods. He spews anti-business rhetoric. He threatens more anti-trust action. He proposes massive taxes on energy. He proposes massive taxes to pay for the uninsured. All these policies take money from business and reduce economic activity, which in turn reduces employement. Obama's counter to this anti-business environment was the stimulus package - to borrow money from the Chinese and spend t via the government. But that has failed since either it hasn't been spent yet or it got or will be spent on worthless/non-stimulative assets (such as state budget gaps).

Well... I AM an expert in photography and this guy's analysis is stupid. You can see from the feet position of Obama and the girl that Obama is standing exactly beside the ass in question because they are on steps.

This reaction from Bitchphd is an offshoot of PDS. The lefties are fearful that Obama will be subjected to the same or similar "scrutiny" that has dogged Palin. Thus, it becomes necessary for them to defend The One to the point of absurdity and to attack his critics.

They are clear, as are we all, that scrutiny of The One will be a disaster for him and the secular progressive dream.

The analysis is of a photo, which speaks for itself. Nothing that is subsequently learned about the what immediately preceded or followed can change what you thought when you first saw and analyzed the photo. She stood by the analysis of the photo, because nothing that happened afterward could change what her reaction to the photo was.

I guess this woman was completely out of Obama's field of vision as well.

Here's a clue for his defenders: you guys are the ones turning this issue into a "story." It was nothing more than a moment of idle humor based on a president displaying a human foible. I have yet to see even a single political opponent claim that it reflects on his governance, his politics or even - other than possibly positively - on his humanity. Your increasingly ridiculous attempts to try to convince people that they cannot see (even in the video) what they plainly see are perpetuating the coverage of the issue.

If you had just had a moment of clarity, and either had a chuckle yourself or simply let the moment pass, no one would be mentioning it today.

Instead, what you're doing is creating a situation where those you are accusing of lying are now going to be on the lookout for every possible similar situation in the future. You are creating the politics of the ridiculous with your hyperventilating defense of a complete non-issue.

Just a little self-awareness on your part and this will all be over. Take a deep breath...

Well, I'm not an expert on photography but I am an expert on Nancy and Sluggo comics... and if Obama were really looking at the young lady's butt there'd be a dashed line going from his eye to the butt. So there.

Obama is simply showing the world that he is capable of multi-tasking. Assgawking and helping another woman down a stair. I'll bet he can assgawk and chew gum at the same time. Joe Biden... er... ah... forget it.

That video of Obama and his fly popping move proves that Obama can control his movements to perfection. So let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he was only watching the young lady's hips in case she needed his quick assistance in reaching her full potential for womanhood. You know, like JFK assisted Marilyn Monroe.

He wasn't looking at her ass! He just noticed something interesting on the ground a couple seconds before helping a young lady walk down one step.

The funny thing is how Obama's legions of sycophants fall all over themselves to protect Obama against the slander that he might be behaving like a normal male.

Or maybe, like Bruno, he was trying to elicit a rebuke from the girl's parents and thus expose their bigotry. In hindsight, we can view that effort as flawless executed, given their public reaction.

On the linked post, it occurs to me that in an article that long, it might be a good idea to summarize the primary contention. Without that, the rest reads like someone trying to make a simple subject sound extraordinarily complex. It's not that hard: where was she standing, where was he standing, where was he looking, how did the photo editing really change anything? And if the video actually made it clear that Obama wasn't looking at the girl's ass (it didn't), why go to all the fucking trouble?

I overlooked this absurd claim from Ann Althouse that Obama was squeezing his crotch as the girl went by. Really, it's a remarkably stupid claim that the video shows is wrong.

Hmm... where are you getting this?

I guess, I thought the Althouse comment about the parallel universe and crotch squeeze was althouse making a joke in an "intellectual way." But, maybe I'm wrong and Althouse can explain it for the dumb conservatives out here.

As a general rule, civilized people agree that violent overthrow of democratically elected people is the wrong way to go. Many Republicans seem to have coup envy these days.

I wonder what would happen here, if Obama attempted to bypass the constitutional process by declaring a referendum in order to change the two-term limit.

First, you would have a court rule. If Obama chose not to follow the courts ruling and still attempted to have the illegal referendum, the only proper response would be to arrest him and then for the Congress to impeach him at that point. Just like what happened in Honduras.

That is a rather high step. Barack did a smooth job of panning a picturesque vista without obvious gaping. Then, he can be seen lifting his hand to help the young woman with the glasses down the step AFTER she touches his arm (good thing he's not Royalty), as the young Brazilian turns to face front.

All that depth of field hoo-hah misses the point entirely when it's not completely erroneous. Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs, sonny. I'll wager the Professor knows all about f-stops and focal lengths and shutter speeds and digital compression artifacts and obsolescent concepts like film speed as well.

The Professor has opened up the debate to a complete lesson in fake photos.

Not "faked photos," but deceptive ones. I said that I didn't think Jason Reed's manipulations were nefarious because I don't think they were: professional photographers working on a deadline often do quick-and-dirty sharpenings when they're using digital cameras (and most use digital cameras now). Most of us have digital cameras that do the sharpening for us, but professionals prefer to use cameras that don't and sharpen the pictures themselves. (Basic account as to why can be found here.)

Amazing that someone can write 1000 words on depth of field without mentioning F-stops and their effect.

As I mentioned in the comments elsewhere, I didn't want to assume I knew what kind of lens the photographer was using, which is why I avoided talking about perspective distortion. I didn't want to assume to have facts not in evidence, which is why I stopped with saying that the photographer used a digital camera and tried to explain the phenomena as best I could with the facts I had.

he really should know how a staircase works

It's not a staircase: it's two wide, tiered steps leading up to a circular stage.

Brad DeLong makes a better and pithier criticism, in his fetching style

Actually, I wrote that. But I'll take the comparison to Brad as a compliment.

That post was overly long and indulgent on making the point, but the simple criticism of your take on Obama, merely from a still photo, is correct.

Note also that she still insists on not addressing any of the criticism. She responded to a careful and deliberate, if over-long, post by quoting a comment.

You can see from the feet position of Obama and the girl that Obama is standing exactly beside the ass in question because they are on steps.

If you are, as you claim, a professional photographer, then you would know better than to just say "You can see from the picture," because even absent manipulation, you'll end up saying things like, "You can see from the picture that her prom date is a foot tall!"

I wonder what would happen here, if Obama attempted to bypass the constitutional process by declaring a referendum in order to change the two-term limit. .

Again, this oft-repeated claim by the coup plotters and coup backers could not have worked. I posted on why and won't repeat the arguments here.

The only responses I've gotten to this are:

a) ignoring the point and repeating the charge, (Sloan/elHombre, etc) orb) admitting the point.

How would they elect a new President in November while holding a referendum on the constitutional assembly AND THEN hold a constintutional assembly AND THEN extend Zelay's term after that election before the next Prez takes office?

Now, swivel your eyes over to Obama's feet. The foot closest to the woman, like Sarkozy's, is planted and aimed forward, but the other steps off in the direction of the woman, bending the knee upward into a bit of a crotch-squeeze and forming the base of a dramatic tilt of the entire body into a flexible S-shape that leans toward the woman. .

It's an absurd statement and deconstruction, but she didn't seem to be joking.

This whole episode reminds me of during the election some conservatives were going on about how Democratic "goons" were going to try to steal the election. Then a Republican campaign worker who was a young white woman claimed that she was assaulted by two black men who carved a "B" into her cheek. Drudge (and I believe Althouse) pushed the story at the beginning before it was uncovered as being a hoax. After that the whole "Dem Thugs" canard was canned.

In this case President Obama looks large with all of his would be little tormentors looking silly shooting their little bent arrows. This has also given him some immunity from this line of personal attack while these little would be tormentors (Drudge, etc.) are left dangling from their petards.

What AlphaTroll and the other trolls don't get is that conservatives are happy to see Obama is not some demigod, but just another man with normal desires. However they must be disappointed that their god is just a man.

Sloanasaurus: you still don't get "conditionals", and most of your criticism is about assumptions of what effects things will have. Again, would McCain (or Sarah Palin!) have turned things around in a few months? This mess, building for years?! The world has changed, sorry.

Honduras: Maguro, it was misrep. to say, Wow, that's some brilliant analysis there...Zelaya was "doing whatever" but shouldn't have been removed, as far as you can tell.Well it sure isn't brilliant to not even get someone's point. I didn't say they didn't have the right to remove him at all (like through impeachment.) I clearly said, they don't [AFAIK] have the right to just topple him in a coup (and keep him out of the country.)

OK, those of you griping about people feigning expertise in Honduran law etc: do you know what their laws say? Maybe, but tell us instead of empty complaints about others. I know that Zelaya did wrong, but even Miguel Estrada admits there wasn't justification for exile. Shouldn't there be a trial and other due process? That's the point, not the straw man of as if Zelaya was "OK." The OAS, flawed as it may be, voted 33-0 to suspend Honduras. That should tell us something.

Hey Paul Zrimsek, do you remember me from my legendary Usenet thread ca. 2001, "The foundational problem of libertarian theory"? Man that was a monster. Heh, I don't think your side ever gave a truly satisfactory answer. I loved the way the Georgists threw in a third-way monkey wrench!

BTW, in all this hemming and hawing over whether Obama looked at/gawked at some young chick - so what the hell if he did?

Neil' - You acknowledge fault on both sides, but clearly Zelaya initiated the trouble in Honduras. Calling an unconstitutional popular referendum to extend your own power is a classic strongman power play, and it is absurd for us to sit here and bitch about whether the Honduran gov't handled it perfectly.

The Honduran gov't hasn't been killing innocent people in the streets like the Iranians did, so why not respect their nationhood and let them sort it out?

Apparently, some commenters do not understand the nature of the Althouse "Theater of Topicks". One may stir a martini or one may stir a blog. The results can be quite pleasurable. Personally, I found her opinion of the photograph delightful. It matters not that I agree or disagree,but rather that I am amused.

What the OAS did to Honduras tells us precisely nothing about the legitimacy of Honduras removing Zelaya, except that it seems that the OAS is 100% wrong on two things: the sanctions against Honduras and the admission of Cuba to the OAS.

The removal of Zelaya was accomplished; his physical location (free but unharmed in Costa Rica) is a trivial point. It's like arguing that Prez Nixon should have taken a train and not a helicopter.

I remember the thread and you, Neil. That was a good'un, even if I have to live with the shame of being the only person in the history of Usenet not to get the other side to agree with him in the end. No doubt you and the Georgists are equally broken up about their failure to come up with an argument that I consider satisfactory.

"So what?" is pretty much my reaction to the Obama thing too. The photo-Trutherism is amusing though.

You should just admit you were wrong, Althouse. The video refutes your analysis. I don't care who looks at who's ass. But if someone is not looking at someone's ass, and is positively proven not to be doing so, you should admit you fucked up - out of respect of the owner of the supposedly ogled ass - if not for the alleged ogler.

Waiting for Althouse to admit she was wrong is like, well, I don't know. Maybe like waiting for her to admit that 142,000 pages on the web establish the connection between AF and DOF, so the "professional" she cites in the post is full of it?

But because she's such an intellectually dishonest hack, she's going to take the word of the one person who validates what she already believes over reality. Which is all well and good . . . if you like your political commentary to come from people who don't know anything and cheerlead the first person who seconds their ignorant ramblings.